Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 09:34:32 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@acm.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ptlib build failure - breaks pwlib - hence also asterisk - opal - & openh323 Message-ID: <20100924233432.GE49476@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20100923122251.3a70f4ab@seibercom.net> References: <201009201028.38559.david@vizion2000.net> <4C98DD7E.9000203@aldan.algebra.com> <20100922134505.GA4217@wep4035.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de> <201009230914.16763.david@vizion2000.net> <4C9B65A9.2060709@aldan.algebra.com> <20100923122251.3a70f4ab@seibercom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--r7U+bLA8boMOj+mD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2010-Sep-23 12:22:51 -0400, Jerry <freebsd-ports.user@seibercom.net> wro= te: >A few months ago, after upgrading to version 8/amd64 and installing >OpenSSL from ports, I had several ports bomb out when I attempted to >build them. I filed PR's against them and contacted the maintainers. It >appeared that the majority of these port maintainers were not even aware >that their port would not build in the presents of OpenSSL when it was >installed via the ports tree. In any case, I was able to get them to >fix their ports to build correctly. So it sounds like everything worked as expected. I fail to see any deficiency in the way things worked. >What amazed me is that this is such a common occurrence that it should >have been contemplated when the port was released. Why do you think that? It's quite likely that the port maintainers didn't install OpenSSL from ports - I know I don't. > Perhaps the Porters >Handbook should list ports that have a corresponding base system >counterpart; thereby, alerting the maintainer that he/she should test >against both versions to insure full compatibility. I disagree. I'd be surprised if any part of the base system _didn't_ have one or more corresponding equivalents in ports. As well as OpenSSL, there are 5 versions of gcc (and probably a half-dozen other C compilers), binutils, 5 versions of bind (and several other DNS implementations that presumably also implement resolver libraries), 3 Kerberos variants, 2-4 versions of ncurses, readline, etc. Expecting a ports maintainer to check that their port works with all of these on 3 different FreeBSD branches and about 5 different architectures is completely unrealistic. IMHO, the expectations on a port maintainer are that they verify that the port works as expected in their environments (where any unusual configurations are listed in the port dependencies) and at least builds on all other supported branches/architectures (via tinderbox or similar). Any issues beyond that realistically need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. --=20 Peter Jeremy --r7U+bLA8boMOj+mD Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkydNYgACgkQ/opHv/APuIdC8ACfd6jIuafQBL/VGjlfOvqBpt+n Y5cAoLofsxz56Gs9OujJMqW+Hgzb3/CL =1RT1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --r7U+bLA8boMOj+mD--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100924233432.GE49476>